ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CPC had granted relief through a rectification order, but the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify if the bonus payments were made before the due date under Section 43B.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the AO and CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas, 2024' scheme. The Revenue did not object to this withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the grounds urged by the assessee in the Cross Objection should have been filed as a separate appeal. Therefore, the Cross Objection was dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal was also dismissed due to lack of tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a procedural error by filing under the wrong sub-clause for its application under Section 80G(5). The CIT wrongly denied registration based on this technicality. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant approval to the assessee as an existing institution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance as the assessee had sufficient surplus funds to make the advances. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Reliance Industries.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the documents and affidavits in the correct perspective and the CIT(A) wrongly upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the AO for re-examination after evaluating the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of substantial justice and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free surplus funds (Rs. 695.56 Cr) compared to the total investment in assets and work-in-progress (Rs. 97.39 Cr). Therefore, the use of interest-bearing funds could be covered by the surplus interest-free funds, and no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and relevant case laws. It found that the AO passed the assessment order without incorporating the DRP's directions, making it legally questionable. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving findings on merit. Considering principles of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an order based on incorrect facts and in a negligent manner. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue did not possess sufficient evidence to support the addition. The evidence from the laptop was not corroborated, and the assessee was not provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act and quashed them. For other assessment years, the issues were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of India Vs ACIT, which was against the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them. For A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO were beyond the limitation period under Section 201(3) and quashed them, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes. For A.Y. 2016-17, the issues were covered by the Supreme Court decision in State Bank of India vs. ACIT, leading to the dismissal of those appeals.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were barred by limitation as they were passed after the prescribed period. The appeals concerning AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of an additional ground. For other assessment years, the issues were decided against the assessee following a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO were barred by limitation as they were beyond the prescribed time limit for passing orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals related to A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 were allowed for statistical purposes, while other appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous. The CIT's observation that the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiry was insufficient for invoking Section 263. The CIT should have conducted his own inquiry to establish the error.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act, and thus quashed the said orders. For AY 2016-17, the issues were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal found the AO's order to be barred by limitation under Section 201(3) as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit of two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed. For AY 2016-17, the issues were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of India vs. ACIT, which was against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were barred by limitation, as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3) of the Act. For AY 2016-17, the issues were covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of State Bank of India Vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were barred by limitation, as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3) of the Act. For the other appeals, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which ruled against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act and quashed them. For other appeals concerning AY 2016-17, the issues were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT, which was against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, there must be seized incriminating material that pertains to the assessee. Since no specific incriminating material was found linking the assessee to the search conducted on another group, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2016-17, restricting the addition for labor food and welfare expenses to Rs.1 Lac. For the labor charges disallowance, it was held that the payments were made to an intermediary for labor, not a subcontractor, and the disallowance was deleted. For AY 2017-18, the addition for labor food and welfare expenses was deleted.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding labour food and welfare expenses, restricting the addition to Rs. 1 Lac. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that the payee had confirmed receipt and the payments were for laborers directly employed, thus allowing the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had considered the assessee's explanation and accepted one of the plausible views based on facts. The revisionary order was deemed an attempt to broaden the scope of inquiry beyond the AO's original assessment and was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 265.71 Lacs could not be disallowed again as it would amount to double addition, as the assessee had reversed the provision in the current year. Regarding the second issue, it found no grievance for the Revenue as the CIT(A) had directed verification.

The Tribunal, while noting the rejection due to non-compliance with furnishing details, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal admitted affidavits from the sellers as crucial evidence. It found that while the CIT(A) offered opportunities, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the cash payment to agriculturists warranted admitting the evidence. The impugned order was set aside, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging adverse medical conditions of the assessee. Considering the assessee is an agriculturist with exempt agricultural income, and acknowledging the difficulty in maintaining detailed documentation for cash sources, the Tribunal found that a lump sum addition of Rs. 5 Lacs would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the Section 68 addition as the assessee proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the source of funds. For the assessee's appeal, it was partly allowed; the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the actual exempt income of Rs. 3.50 Lacs, emphasizing that prior year's acceptance does not preclude challenging the issue.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke revisionary powers u/s 263 when the matters were already pending before the CIT(A). The powers of CIT(A) are co-extensive with the AO, and any errors could be addressed there. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully established the genuineness and source of unsecured loans, thus upholding the deletion of the addition made by the AO. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict it to the extent of the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable in terms of the latest CBDT circular on low tax effect. The revenue's appeal is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty to seek revival if the tax effect is found to be higher or if the case falls under an exception.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had afforded sufficient opportunities, the affidavits of the sellers, which were necessary and crucial evidence, could not have been readily available. The Tribunal admitted the evidence and set aside the impugned order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were part of a running account with the director and were for business exigency, not attracting penalty provisions. The Tribunal also observed that substantial receipts and payments were through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the transactions appeared to be a running account with the director, with funds provided for business exigency and not strictly loans or deposits. The penalties levied under Section 271D and 271E were not sustained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing ITA 475/CHD/2023, holding that it was a bonafide human error. The Tribunal also modified the order of the CIT(E) regarding the registration, stating that the Trust should have been granted registration as a Charitable Institution, not just a Religious Trust. The issue of Section 80G registration was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the payments were excessive or unreasonable by not comparing them with market rates. The payee confirmed the transaction, and the assessee discharged its onus by providing supporting invoices and transaction confirmation. The ad-hoc disallowance was restricted.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, it is imperative to have found incriminating material during the search that pertains to the assessee. Since no specific incriminating material was found relating to the assessee, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's age and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The AO was also directed to consider the cost of acquisition and indexation for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal noted that Section 44AD allows for presumptive taxation without detailed accounts and that the assessee's counsel's hospitalization was a reasonable cause for delay. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished Form 26A certificates, proving TDS payment by deductees. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted if the deductee has paid the tax.